Violence and Reconciliation

MELISSA PLATH

 Conceptual Argument Theoretical Ties between Violence and

Reconciliation Practical Ties between Violence and Reconciliation

Case Study: The Rwandan Genocide

The Bigger Picture

Conceptual Argument
Legitimization of violence and reconciliation related,

often directly

Both theoretically and in practice

Theoretical Ties
What is reconciliation? Both a process and a goal Political Reconciliation:
Based on the ideas of Andrew Schaap (2006) Understands the political as the moment or potential within politics when the notion of a we comes to be articulated strives to achieve a we between former enemies, allowing them to reconstitute former violence and current conflict achievement of this we is not certain, but merely a political potential, engendering this action with the added risk of vulnerability

Theoretical Ties
Schmitt: the political can only be determined by

finding and defining specifically political categories and in the distinctions between these categories, to which actions may ultimately be linked

The ultimate category and distinction is that of friend and enemy Violence legitimized in this friend/enemy distinction
The enemy only exists when there is at least the potential, in extreme cases, for armed conflict If this potential is never reached, or ceases to exist, then the political is never achieved or is terminated

Theoretical Ties
Reconciliation also legitimized and undertaken

through this friend/enemy distinction

Schaap: reconciliation through the re-conception of the friend/enemy distinction re-definition of who belongs in friend category and who in the enemy category Yet, important into that there still must be a defined enemy (Schmitt: no politics without enemy)

Theoretical Ties
Foucault: Biopower Power justified through an emphasis on protection of life, instead of threat of death However, when groups are identified that threaten this life/nation, violence legitimized to ensure their survival Schaap: again, reformulation of conception of who to

protect and who is enemy

Reconciliation legitimized through emphasis on life

Practical Ties
Argument based on Rwandan case study Basic tools for reconciliation: Truth and Reconciliation Commissions Judicial Action Reparations These tools inherently linked to the violence that necessitates them

The Rwandan Genocide

Began on April 6, 1994 and lasted 100 days Almost a million Tutsi and moderate Hutu killed Began after the Presidents plane was shot down,

responsibility for which has never been established However, genocide was meticulously planned and intentionally executed by government elite (azuku)

The Rwandan Genocide

Characterized by: Mass participation in killings (umuganda) Construction and interpretation of ethnic identity and inclusion and exclusion based on that identity Use of propaganda Failure of international community to prevent or stop the genocide Legitimization for violence based on: Internally: threat to power (Arusha accords, RPF, international calls for democracy/power sharing) Publically: threat to Rwandan (Hutu) population

Characterization of Tutsi and moderate Hutu as the enemy

Practical Ties
Genocide
Mass participation in

Reconciliation
Mass participation in

killings Construction of ethnic identity Use of propaganda (RPF, Ibyitso) Failure of international community to intervene

reconciliation (gacaca) Construction of national identity Use of propaganda (ingando) Presence of international community

The Bigger Picture

Violence

End to Violence

Reconciliation

The Bigger Picture

Violence

End to Reconciliation

End to Violence

Reconciliation